USB Random Number Generator - <AUTHOR> http://jayakody2000lk.blogspot.com/2013/09/usb-random-number-generator.html <comment><USER3> I would seriously advise anybody from using this device. Designing a hardware true random number generator takes a lot of effort that this design is evidently lacking. For example, there is no whitening whatsoever. Even worse, the firmware includes a line of code that ensures that the "RNG" never outputs the same "random" number twice in a row.

Also, usually HW RNGs include a firmware module that is constantly monitoring the entropy output and shutting off the generator in case of it sinking below a certain threshold to detect hardware failure and prevent it from causing predictable output.

Some more information on this subject can be found at Wikipedia: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generator#Performance_test) I do not want to discourage anybody from working on such things. I think this is a nice project idea and a very good opportunity to learn a lot about random numbers. Please, though, always put a _big_ warning on any crypto things you designed youself and do not present them as a finished product.

[edit]s/such a/this/1[/edit]

<comment><USER4> If noone knows you're using it, the device might even be better than a software RNG.

<comment><USER3> I don't think so. The PRNG will at least be less biased.

<comment><USER5> That's only assuming that the PRNG hasn't been backdoored or otherwise compromised by the NSA. If it has, damn near ANY hardware RNG will be better than it. If not, then you're right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Rolling your own random number generator should be considered the same as rolling your own crypto: by all means have a play in order to help understand the concepts, but unless you are an expert in the relevant mathematics+electronics don't every use your own in production.

Designing a reliably fair and balanced RNG is not as easy a task as it may seem at first glance.

For those wanting a cheap HWRNG, a growing number of CPUs include them now. The SoC around which the rPi is based includes one that in my tests reliably pumps out 550+kbit/sec and passes the test I've thrown its output at - <USER2> at it is easy so you just need a secure+reliable method for passing the bits to where you need them. Newer Intel chips also include a HWRNG, though I don't know if is as easy to expose (with the rPi just enable the relevant kernel module and read from /dev/hwrng).

[I did add notes on this to the "comparison of random number generators" page on Wikipedia but "User:Trinitresque" deemed the info not worthy and reverted the lot, I disagree of course but my day job and other commitments don't allow time for arguing the toss with Wikipedia editors!]

<comment><USER7> > Rolling your own random number generator should be considered the same as > rolling your own crypto: by all means have a play in order to help > understand the concepts, but unless you are an expert in the relevant > mathematics+electronics don't every use your own in production.

I'm not sure it's _quite_ as bad as rolling your own crypto. If you have a RNG you can run it through statistical tests, e.g. NIST's DIEHARD tests. If you know the physical principles on which your device works, I can't imagine a scenario where you'd be getting randomly-distributed bits that aren't actually random. And if you add those bits to your system's entropy pool, rather than using them directly, then it should be fine. That said, I agree that you still shouldn't use it in a production environment!

Your suggestion for e.g. the RPi RNG is problematic because (last I checked) there wasn't information online about how that actually works. For RNGs, I'd much prefer trusting my own design than a black box which could be outputting an AES-encoded string of all 0s for all I know!

<comment><USER8> >That said, I agree that you still shouldn't use it in a production environment!

I wonder though. There's a possibility that you'll screw something up and miss it during testing, but I've also seen some scary analyses of expensive off the shelf RNG hardware.

I'd say that if you're in a position of highly restricted capital that requires generation of tons and tons of secure random numbers, the ugly truth is that an open source DIY solution for generating your own entropy (especially if you can use multiple designs that are separately tested) might be safer than dumping your limited resources on proprietary unknowns.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hrmph.

did one of these in 1993, working with pxn when we were both at Fringeware. It turned out to be nearly impossible to eliminate a 60Hz signal without going to pure (D cell) battery power, and a metal chassis.

I'd expect there to be all sorts of harmonics on a USB device.

<comment><USER10> If this is used as input to a randomness pool and filtered through a hash function, ideally together with mouse, keyboard and network event timing as in the linux random device, this should be very hard to break, even with some biases. I would not have used the output of such a device directly, even if the output appeared random on statistical tests, just becuase the biases you mentioned. There will still usually be some randomness in the output, even when it is biased.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Hardware random number generators are tricky. This project doesn't appear to have mentioned any of the tricky parts or how they were tackled. It looks like a fun project to noodle about with though!

Spotting correlation and skew is interesting. Finding the right balance of speed and fidelity is tricky.

Here's some previous comment about Entropykey ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1453299](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1453299)) and here's some stuff about testing and using hardware RNGs that I was reading a while ago ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6060636](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6060636))

</comment><comment><USER12> I am nearly done building my own. Had a couple of boards etched for me (16 Euro incl. shipping for 4 boards with holes pre drilled) I will lend the soldering gun from my brother today and build it. Unfortunately I realized I am short 1 4.kO resistor...

[http://emergent.unpythonic.net/01257868826](http://emergent.unpythonic.net/01257868826)

Too much for you? You can live with security by obscurity? Buy this thing:

[http://www.entropykey.co.uk/](http://www.entropykey.co.uk/)

With both systems you can just feed the noise into /dev/random You should make some tests from time to time to test reliability. Not sure you can use it with windows.

<comment><USER13> Forgive me, I hate to be a pedantic bastard or take away from your message; but something that's bothered me about a few of my acquaintances since grade school is their inability to understand the difference between lend and borrow.

\- If you have something that someone else wishes to use, you lend it to them.

\- If someone else has something that you wish to use, you borrow it from them.

I don't know why this in particular has bothered me so much, it's just a small thing. Apologies for any offence, none intended.

<comment><USER12> You know what? I wrote borrow but changed it to lend. I guess I will never learn (memorize) it. Something like the difference between schwul und schwül (gay vs. humid). My English girl friend could never tell which is which and some days, the weather was gay.

<comment><USER14> FWIW borrow was correct in this case

<comment><USER13> I wasn't trying to be offensive... but rather, helpful. I hope I didn't offend you by pointing it out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> How about XOR-ing output from some promising hardware generator with SHA256(SHA256("user-supplied random nonsense phrase"))? This way we ensure against both attacks (or backdoors) in hardware and bruteforcing user input.

Generally speaking, if we have 2 to 4 independent sources of random numbers (/dev/random, user input, external generator, something else), what's the best way to combine all of them in a single key to ensure that weakness in one of the? Is XOR enough? Using a cryptographic hash function is not acceptable because it may have a backdoor (so instead of multiple sources we get back to trusting only one).

</comment><comment><USER16> Between the upper & lower limits of it's range (10k, 40k), that looks pretty random to me. Curious how it responds to temperature changes, though.

<comment><AUTHOR> > Curious how it responds to temperature changes, though.

That's a good point. It is common to use a transistor to measure temperature. One could control temperature of the 3904 with a peltier if needed.

silicon bandgap temperature sensor [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_bandgap_temperature_se...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_bandgap_temperature_sensor)

[http://www.sensorsmag.com/sensors/temperature/temperature- se...](http://www.sensorsmag.com/sensors/temperature/temperature-sensor-tips- and-tricks-1439)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Kinda like the entropy key from simtec? [http://www.entropykey.co.uk/](http://www.entropykey.co.uk/)

</comment><comment><USER18> Just use a lava lamp.

<comment><USER19> Or a microphone sampling ambient noise.

<comment><USER9> Or a CMOS sensor in an otherwise perfectly dark environment.

[http://www.lavarnd.org/news/lavadiff.html](http://www.lavarnd.org/news/lavadiff.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Random numbers and the NSA

[http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securityma...](http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2007/11/securitymatters_1115)

</comment><comment><USER8> Is there a way, without recompiling the kernel or anything like that, to get this to feed into /dev/urandom's entropy pool so that it can actually be used effectively?

<comment><USER20> Yes, there's a kernel interface (an IOCTL called RNDADDENTROPY) specifically for this purpose, it allows userspace (root user only as far as I know) to give the kernel random data samples along with an estimate of how much actual entropy the data contains.

Here's a bit of python code I wrote that could be adapted to do what you're asking for. It's designed to source random data from smartcards (via PKCS#11 libraries) at the moment but changing the data source to the output of another program would be trivial: [https://github.com/infincia/TokenTools/blob/master/token- rng...](https://github.com/infincia/TokenTools/blob/master/token-rng.py#L142)

There are also a few mature projects designed to do this job (rngd and another one I cant remember the name of at the moment) that could also probably be made to work from arbitrary sources if they don't already, but if you wanted to do-it-yourself on the software side along with the hardware, that python up there would get you started.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: A better Vim distribution? - <AUTHOR>

I'm trying to change my development workflow. Currently I find myself in graphical editors, writing C++ and I dont feel the workflow is great. Mouse to Keyboard, back again.
Ideally I'd like to end up with split screen editing, left hand file navigation, tabs. Do everything from the keyboard. This is going to take some practice getting used to.
So I downloaded the spf13 vim distro: https://github.com/spf13/spf13-vim
But now I am realizing I need a lot more knowledge to customize it. I cant just hop in and use it. Things like NERDTree persisting across all tabs. Setting up split screen from the start. Tabs.
Where do I find the balance between becoming productive in vim and learning to customize it to actually continuing to code and make progress as I can with my graphical editors? <comment><USER2> I think your experience hits on a problem with vim distributions - you're jumping into a solution to someone else's pain points.

spf13, which has a lot of great plugins, probably started as someone's personal collection of plugins at some point. As such, the author had a lot of time to muse on what her/his current vim set up was missing. Sharing someone else's vim distribution, you miss out on the motivation behind including things (and also on the opportunity to pick alternatives more suited to your needs).

I would start with stock vim and spend a few minutes outlining the features you need. I recommend, as a minimal set, a couple of plugins I think most people are happy about:

      Vundle [or Pathogen]
      (two managers for vim plugins hosted on GitHub)

[https://github.com/gmarik/Vundle.vim](https://github.com/gmarik/Vundle.vim) [[https://github.com/tpope/vim-pathogen](https://github.com/tpope/vim- pathogen)]

      Sensible vim
      (useful defaults for vim)

[https://github.com/tpope/vim-sensible](https://github.com/tpope/vim-sensible)

      Fugitive
      (make vim aware of your local git repository)

[https://github.com/tpope/vim-fugitive](https://github.com/tpope/vim-fugitive)

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll start back to a clean slate and check these out.

<comment><USER3> I second that advice. I did just that and built piece by piece, research options and customizing to my preferences. It takes more time and effort, but at least I understand what's going on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm making the transition to vim as well. My wish list was similar to yours. But I've decided to adapt my expectations to be a better fit with how vim works. In many editors, a tab and a file are equivalent. In vim, you have buffers (in-memory representations of a file being edited), windows (views on a buffer) and tabs (sets of windows). Since in vim a tab is not a file, trying to make that file-per-tab model work may be possible but seems to lead to several pain points.

I'm using the Command-T plugin to navigate the file system (to open files) and to change between opened files (i.e. buffers). I usually work on a single tab, splitting windows when needed, and alternating between buffers with ",b" (Command-T to show current buffers and select one) or "]b" (next buffer).

If I need to work in two different window layouts, I can open a separate tab. That is rare, though.

Additionally, I'm using the Ag plugin to search in files and the qargs plugin to replace text in the searched files.

</comment><comment><USER4> For C++, I highly recommend getting YouCompleteMe [[https://github.com/Valloric/YouCompleteMe](https://github.com/Valloric/YouCompleteMe)] combined with SuperTab[[https://github.com/ervandew/supertab](https://github.com/ervandew/supertab)]. This will make the transition from IDEs to be easier.

<comment><USER5> On the GitHub page it says YCM obsoletes SuperTab because it has everything and more.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: quit job and dive into the deep end? - <AUTHOR>

hi hn,
i'm at a situation where i am about to quit my job, and just dive head on into starting a startup.
We have about $50k saved between the two of us. Is that enough?
I realize this isn't an exact science.. but how do full timers make the transition to a real startup?
I dont have any long-term expenses (no mortgage, no car payment, etc). <comment><USER2> I quit my job few months back. How much money you have in the bank has no bearing on how you feel about not having constant income. (fyi, I saved up lot more than your number). On a day without much progress, I stress myself that had I been at my job and goofed off, I would still make the money.

Here are a few tips: 1\. Have a project that you are ready to launch. 2\. validated from users/customers that they are interested in it. 3\. Figured out how to market your project/product.

I had 1) but not 2 and 3. It is a long process to learn what customers care about and what channels you need leverage to market it.

I read everything about startups over the years , worked at one and still wish someone told me specific things like 1\. How to validate a project idea before you spend too much time on it. 2\. How to effectively market it.

Goodluck.

</comment><comment><USER3> What is your burn rate? Take the average of the expenses over the last year. That will dictate how long you can continue without having to worry about outside income.

Now, I assume you have the idea already, so do you expect to turn profitable (or large enough to raise angel/vc money) by the time youve burned through the savings?

Do you have kids? If so, you need to worry much more about the buffer

But even if all of that is squared away, natural instincts will tell you its a bad idea. Especially if you have been in the working world for a long time. This is natural, and expected, that you would be nervous about making the jump. That being said, there are many people (do a search) that have done the same thing on weaker bases.

</comment><comment><USER4> I recently have switched to half time at work so I can push forward with my startup. Worked out well for me (still have some outside income), and for my company (they were dependent on me as a single point of failure, so me leaving over 6 months means I can train my replacements).

Most importantly, I've felt a renewed sense of purpose. I can't emphasize enough how much my productivity has soared and my spirits have risen.

It's scary as hell, but I've never felt more alive.

</comment><comment><USER5> I wouldn't do it unless my webapp made at least $0.25 a month (but I've been accused of hastiness before).

</comment><comment><USER6> if you're seriously considering it, shoot me an e-mail at email@example.com.

we're looking for someone to start prototyping and are about 2-3 months into things and have vetted the concept about as thoroughly as possible.

would love to share and chat.

</comment><comment><USER7> I would ask how much of a runway that gives you and do you think you can get to profit in the time estimated? The answer depends in part on how much you spend each month and in part on how well developed your concept is, plus a few other factors. For example: Is $50K something you can live on for 2 years or is that six months living expenses? (etc)

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks mz...

the runway would likely be a year. id imagine that it should be doable.. to get a webapp running (im a great programmer) and profitable right?

i havent got a concept yet, although i have a lot of ideas (6+) that im starting to build the case for.

<comment><USER8> Whatever your estimates, usually double it or reduce it in half against your favor. Clearly that formula doesn't always work for everything but estimates are often off and things happen, you need to pivot, shit comes up and money runs dry, whatevers... So if you think it takes 3 months to launch, assume 6 but strive for 3 or sooner. If you think you got 12 months run way, assume 6 but strive for 12+. It'll help ground you in case shit happens. 6+ ideas is too many (but I think you already know that). Before jumping ship, I'd recommend getting somewhere with iteration, MVP, anything... that gives you indication that this is a good bet to jump ship for (to an extent). Run with it and hope for the best (READ: work your ass off). Good luck

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Go for it. Really.</comment>


Ask HN: Where can I find a better Google Reader + Twitter + RSS of the Future? - <AUTHOR>

I only want the 5% of TechCrunch-like heavy blogs that my Twitter/G+/Facebook friends, and the world find actually interesting.
I want the fast browsability of Google Reader.
I want 100% of the awesome, but infrequently updated blogs without having to manually go to them every time.
I want the interesting stuff that I didn't know I like but most of my Twitter/G+/Facebook friends apparently find cool.
I want to know the people & blogs my respected friends care about.
I want an experience that works well both while waiting for the train, and when I'm in the mood to putter around the internets.
So please, either point me to news consumption awesomeness, or help me build it this weekend if you too think these are things you want too. <comment><USER2> Flipboard seems a good fit :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I definitely like Flipboard. However, it fails me in a few respects. One big one is the skimability like you can get on Reader. Another is its inability to pull and highlight from the more obscure, but golden blogs and sources that I really love. It does a fantastic job of pulling from Twitter, Facebook, and showing me things it thinks I'll like. To that regards, I give those guys some serious props.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Please help me understand why the SEC settled with Elon Musk and Tesla - <AUTHOR> I don't want to talk about Elon Musk or Tesla here (it's valid conversation topic, but there's been a lot said already). I strictly want to understand why a government body charged with enforcing rules on behalf of the US people declined to go all the way.
From my scant understanding of the events and the laws, the SEC had an open and shut case to win. Why didn't the SEC try to get a guilty plea, or move forward with the necessary legal proceedings to do so? If the argument is that the court finding Elon Musk and Tesla to be guilty would effectively be a death knell for the company, then I have to ask why the punishment in crimes involving individuals seem so much harsher to me.
To be fair, the SEC isn't the only government body that seems to settle against corporations or sufficiently powerful/wealthy/connected individuals, but the arguments in the SEC's favor seem overwhelmingly clear cut to me (i.e. a "slam dunk") and the topic is easy to follow (a small number of events within a short time frame, a small number of clear and concise legal precedents of the law in question). <comment><USER2> Based on the question, I'm guessing that you're either 1) not a US citizen, or 2) there is an ulterior motive... but I'll take the bait anyway.

Its interesting that you start off with not wanting to discuss Elon (or Telsa) because I would argue that the answer to your question is entirely and inseparably related to both. The case and its eventual settlement were emphatically because this is Elon Musk and not a different executive. Since you're posting to HN I would assume that you have been reading the supplemental articles related to other high profile SEC cases (Martha Stewart, Elizabeth Homes, etc... [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/business/elon- musk-tesla-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/business/elon-musk-tesla- sec-ban.html)). I would argue that the SEC actually uses cases like this as public demonstrations to show that they do have the power to regulate, and to serve as a notice of caution to persons trying to manipulate the public markets. If you look at the SECs actual enforcement history though (look at the ramifications to the banks that caused the financial meltdown in '07- '08) they struggle to protect normal investors through regulation and enforcement. This settlement is explicitly about Elon, and Tesla.

Regarding the rest of your post, if you read the filing ([https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/business/us- secu...](https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/business/us-securities- and-exchange-commission-vs-elon-musk/3219/)), the "open and shut" aspect might not be as clear as it appears to be in the media. I personally believe that the SEC would have prevailed, but they could have been slugging this out in court for a while... and if the Saudi Fund were to provide testimony to support Elon, it could create even more of a ruckus. Given their current 5% stake in Tesla, they would benefit by supporting him. So in a way the settlement probably just expedited what the net result would have been anyway.

But to answer your real question... the implications for a harsh penalty versus a light penalty have an even amount of gravity, and the SEC took the middle road on this one. Elon/ Telsa have a ton of enemies but they also have a lot of support. Removing Elon from the helm would/ could cut off the lion at the knees... and cause a huge stir from a large number of investors (and political progressives). If you look at the history of the public markets (I would personally recommend the Story about Piggly Wiggly from "Business Adventures") there are loads of examples where decisions have been made that follow the intent of the law and not the word of the law. And so it goes with Elon and Tesla. $20M for one tweet hurts even the wealthiest people, and Elon's stated goal is to move the world forward towards sustainable transportation... no doubt he would rather have that $20M being used on something towards sustainable transportation and not going into the super- massive black hole of the US government.

Who knows though? Maybe if the SEC had gone all the way it would have been better for US citizens and investors?

<comment><AUTHOR> The answer to your guess is 1). The reason I didn't want to discuss Elon Musk or Tesla is SEC shouldn't be concerned with who they are going in after in enforcing the section of the law that they are concerned with, just whether or not there is a case to me made with enough supporting evidence.

I'm probably just naïve if anything.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> > SEC had an open and shut case to win

LOL!

All trials are risky.

Funding secured can mean many things.

Jurors may be happy Tesla customers and won't convict. Even if jurors convict, judge may not remove Musk.

Musk can appeal, higher level judges may say it's not a crime to lie on Twitter (see Trump's twitter account).

If you think it's a "slam dunk", you must not be an experienced lawyer.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not a lawyer at all. I just saw this event as a case of "doing X, when you are specifically not allowed to do X".

<comment><USER4> It was stupid and dangerous to do that. I think a fine and slap on the wrist was okay. I wish the time out of cob was shorter. The secdies a terrible job of finding leaders of companies, this was just more egregious than usual. Look at all those banks that went under on wall street, no fines or prison terms after saying they were fine.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is flagging a story the same as down voting it? - <AUTHOR> several times over the past week i've been wanting to down vote some of the stories that have made the front page for various reason. i read in the faq that you should only flag a story if it goes against HN guidelines. the faq states that while there are down vote arrows on comment (after the user reaching a certain threshold) there are never any on stories themselves.<p>so after all of that, my question is: how do you exactly down vote a story on HN without feeling icky cause you flagged it? <comment><USER2> The flag button is the report button.

Flagging puts stuff in the moderation queue to be reviewed for abuse / spam. Please don't abuse it for other purposes.

Downvotes exist, but are hidden until you've posted more than some threshold I forget the exact value of.

The idea is to help prevent the downvote button from being even more of a "I don't like what you're saying but can't muster a convincing response to it" button than it already is, while making it convincingly difficult to manipulate via spam accounts.

It's much better at the second than the first, people being what they are, but it does seem to help with both at least enough to justify the feature's continued existence.

<comment><USER3> That's for comments. AFAIK, there is never a downvote button for stories. I think the standards are different for comments and stories. Flagging a comment should be for something kind of abusive, but flagging a story could be just because it doesn't fit here or because it is the zillionth story on the same topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Just upvote stuff you like, and ignore stuff you don't like. If other people find similar stuff interesting, the front page will be filled with them.

If something made front-page, there are enough people upvoting it that your downvote will not kick it off the first page anyway.

<comment><USER5> Or "hide" the stuff you don't like. I like to do that so that when I come back 10 times later that day I don't continually have that annoyance when seeing the story again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> From guidelines:

On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off- topic.

If it's not on topic (interesting) or if it's off topic (politics) feel free to flag it. Also if it has things like clickbait or self-promotion.</comment>


We have an employee whose last name is Null - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4456438/how-can-i-pass-the-string-null-through-wsdl-soap-from-actionscript-3-to-a-co <comment><USER2> interesting</comment>


BMW is not the next Nokia - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-03/bmw-as-the-next-nokia-nonsense <comment><USER2> > EVs are only significantly better for the environment when most power is > generated from renewable sources

Not true if you're talking about air quality rather than greenhouse gases.</comment>


Meet the Founder Trying to Start the Self-Driving Car Revolution - <AUTHOR> http://www.inc.com/magazine/201502/john-brandon/the-new-cruise-control-kyle-vogt-cruise-automation.html <comment><USER2> That "Cruise" company worries me. It may give self-driving cars a bad reputation.

It seems to be lane-keeping plus radar cruise control, plus hype. All the major auto manufacturers have lane-keeping and cruise control working, and some are shipping it. It's good enough to work in most situations on freeways. Most. The auto manufacturers are reluctant to let customers use it as a full autopilot. The basic technology doesn't have enough situational awareness.

Here's what Mercedes has right now:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_RFzC_G5BA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_RFzC_G5BA)

(Turn up the video resolution and read the displays. Messages include "lateral effort from planning too high", "Timeout from ... radar", "Planning timeout ... steer", "Curvature from planning too high".)

Cruise is hyping their system as a full driver-can-do-something-else autopilot. The major manufacturers, all of whom are painfully familiar with liability claims, aren't ready to go that far. Their systems have features which force the human driver to stay reasonably alert. Cruise is app and web people, not real-time and avionics people. This is worrisome.

In autonomous driving marketing, Volvo is the current leader: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42E-tF-6PWU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42E-tF-6PWU)

<comment><USER3> Kyle here, Cruise CEO.

It sucks when press (or even our own marketing) give well-meaning people like you the wrong impression. We need to fix this. The positive impact self- driving cars will have on society far outweighs any desire we have to be first to market or turn a quick profit. We haven't launched a product yet, and we won't until it's safe.

For example, we built a mashup of lane-keeping assist and adaptive cruise control within the first 3 months of starting the company. It wasn't safe enough, so we didn't launch it.

We're on roughly our 5th major iteration of the product. It uses maps, but it also works fine without them. It uses a GPS, but it works fine without it. It uses lane markers for localization, but it works fine without those too. But it's still not safe enough, so we haven't launched it yet.

Plenty of tough problems left to solve, but enough upside to justify our commitment.

<comment><USER4> Mashup ? That makes me feel so much better.

<comment><USER5> The part that should make you feel better is where they knew it wasn't safe, so they didn't release it. Prototyping by mashing things together is how a significant amount of products get started. Including cars.

<comment><USER4> According to Wikipedia, a mashup is a term used to describe web development and combining music. It doesn't denote to me rigorous engineering development. And no, it doesn't inspire confidence in me that they didn't release a mashup that was unsafe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> When can we have an intelligent discussion about what _licenses_ for self driving cars would look like?

We license drivers now. It seems clear that software should have to pass at least the same bar.

Unfortunately everytime it is raised it ends up being a discussion on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of regulation.

My view is that Google's version of a self driving car may be perfect, but I'm unconvinced that "vendor modifications" (to steal a term from the Android world) will always be as well-coded.

What would an appropriate regulation/certification/licensing regime look like? How are updates handled? Are users allowed to modify the software themselves (with or without re-certifying?)

<comment><USER7> Even Google's version will have risks and I expect will make mistakes in early iterations. Having a max speed of 25 MPH and limiting deployment will reduce some of this risk, but AI is hard and the environment is very open and will constantly include novel states the agent has to make sense of. Personally I'm concerned the initial Google design doesn't include a steering wheel for manual override - seems overconfident to me even for normal scenarios let alone degenerate ones (weather, internet connectivity, GPS malfunction, construction, bad maps, road damage, etc.).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I would vote, that the self-driving car revolution started more than 20 years back, when Mercedes, Bosch and others already worked on the self-driving cars. The times when there where no such thing as GPS available to the general public. All the assistants we have these days in cars like, auto distance control, drive lane assistant, obstacle detection, stop-and-go assistant and so on evolved from those prototypes.

At that time a made an internship at the military arm and a fellow had an internship with the self-driving car.

BTW, the most current Mercedes S-Class can do self-driving for about 80% of the time. They intentionally disabled it and even put in logic to detect if the driver is holding the steering wheel or not. If the driver is not holding it for some time, the assistants are disabled by intention.

Also what I do not understand, why Cruise is attaching everything mechanically? Any descend car these days with lane keeping assistant/self- parking assistant has all the parts available. You just have to connect to CAN and control the whole car. Of course, you have to talk with the OEMs. But that is how the companies are work, which convert cars for use for people with disabilities.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm all for self-driving cars, but what I want to hear about is how on earth they'll overcome things like inclement weather, pedestrians, poorly maintained roads, and combinations thereof... but maybe that's just because I'm currently in New England in the winter.

<comment><USER10> Bad weather and unexpected obstacles like pedestrians are actually trivial to handle. Remember that an autopilot's "visual" perception isn't limited to the visible-light range like ours is.

Poorly-maintained roads are the problem that would give me nightmares if I worked on these. Lane markers that might have been perfectly usable when the database was compiled may be too worn out or obscured by snow, leaves, or who- knows-what else to be usable later. How can you design a system to fail safely when every input source is independently fallible? And how can we redesign the auto insurance industry to make it possible to try?

<comment><USER11> >Bad weather and unexpected obstacles like pedestrians are actually trivial to handle.

Google's self-driving cars still have trouble with heavy rain and snow (or at least they did as of last year). [http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden- obstacles...](http://www.technologyreview.com/news/530276/hidden-obstacles- for-googles-self-driving-cars/)</comment></comment></comment>


How Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh Will Change Las Vegas Forever - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/how-tony-hsieh-will-change-las-vegas-2012-9

<comment><USER2> Downtown Vegas needs revitalization. I would imagine with a tech oriented spaces and some cool night activities it could compete with the Strip. I would imagine tax breaks make it compelling for investment as well.

</comment><comment><USER3> We need more entrepreneurs doing cool stuff like this. I wish him well, but I also fear he may prove the old adage: "the way to acquire a small fortune is to start with a large one."</comment>


Exxon Mobil must allow climate change vote – SEC - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-exxon-mobil-shareholders-exclusive-idUSKCN0WP2TG <comment><USER2> What "steps to prepare for a lower carbon future" can an oil company actually take? (Unless that meant, are they bracing for a decline in oil consumption...)

<comment><USER3> Invest in renewables research, marketing and sales.

<comment><USER4> And efficiency. Nothing better for the Earth than just not using the Joules in the first place.</comment></comment></comment>


OpenPDF 1.0.5 released - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/LibrePDF/OpenPDF/releases/tag/1.0.5 <comment><AUTHOR> OpenPDF 1.0.5 released today. OpenPDF is a Java library for creating and editing PDF files with a LGPL and MPL open source license. OpenPDF is based on a fork of iText.

Users of iText 2.1.x are strongly encouraged to upgrade to this OpenPDF version, because of the CVE-2017-9096 iText XML External Entity Vulnerability, which is fixed in this release.

[https://github.com/LibrePDF/OpenPDF](https://github.com/LibrePDF/OpenPDF)</comment>


Does the quality of HN hurt the potential quantity of links spreading virally? - <AUTHOR>

For me, broad social sharing ('quantity' AKA buzz, tweet, fb like, etc) brings back little in return. I've shared tons of links on twitter and essentially nobody says anything in return. But i check bit.ly (by adding a '+' to the url) and see some real use. I feel an obligation to only tweet interesting links for reputation purposes but it does not make me feel gratified.
Now consider HN (quality). Far less traffic, but great community interaction with the content. For me, the discource here is more valuable. Heck, down voting my comments is really valuable feedback (notice how on twitter you never get someone replying back to you with "that tweet sucked" (exception being, you threaten their reputation). And i'll always leave a comment here versus on the creators website (as i hate comments coming up in google searches for my name). In the end, HN completely alters how i interact with content.
HN is only good at distributing certain things and we try to keep it unique here. For content creators, HN can be part of the social strategy but that comes at a cost. Some content creators may not even wish for stories to be here and get sucked into this bubble. For content consumers on HN each comment seems more valuable than a retweet.
What i wonder is: Does the quality of the HN community hurt the potential quantity of links spreading virally? Should this change the social media strategy of content originators?
{sidenote: Dick Costello should bring down voting and up voting to tweets} <comment><USER2> This big block of text scared me away.</comment>


Stop using Digital Ocean Now For the greater good - <AUTHOR> http://serdardogruyol.com/?p=122 <comment><USER2> Our privacy policy prevents us from disclosing any account or personal information so we can not speak to this customers situation publicly.

If the customer would authorize this disclosure then we can discuss it publicly.

Otherwise, as much as it pains us to get negative feedback, whether or not it is deserved, it is beyond our control as the privacy of our customers is the most important issue at stake in a public discussion.

<comment><AUTHOR> Could you please give the specific details to me and to all the people waiting for the answers. Thank you.

<comment><USER3> Just in case this isn't clear, this is OP.

Now, can a lawyer come in and discuss whether or not this can serve as authorization such that DO can't be sued?

<comment><USER4> The OP has deleted two posts so far in this thread, both saying that DO found him to be engaging in a DDOS. This "authorization" could disappear soon as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This doesn't actually tell me to not use Digital Ocean. All it tells me is that the author is trying to make an emotional appeal to other people, without giving any information other than Digital Ocean locked his account, citing violation of their TOS.

While I can't say that they're TOS violation claim is bogus, I also can't say it's not bogus, because the author didn't publish (or, apparently, ask) for that information.

Great, you've got a large number of users, and you used Digital Ocean to host your backend. Why are they saying you're in violation of the TOS?

Ask the follow up, figure out why they're not pleased with you, and don't try to appeal to emotion when you have no substantiating information.

As a side note, I have no horse in this race. I don't use Digital Ocean, and I have no affiliation with them. I just don't see the author's claim as being 100% put together and honest.

<comment><USER6> As far as I'm concerned, it is _never_ acceptable to simply shut off service with no explanation.

What if a site was compromised? What if an employee typoed the IP of an abuser? What if, what if?

Their "fullstop" replies are not professional.

<comment><USER7> Really? So if a customer was paying you $5 a month to run a VPS, you wouldn't shut it down if say... it was hosting child porn? Or if it was sending so many spam emails you were at risk of having all your other customers' servers impacted?

And if you did have some automated system and various criteria for detecting likely abuses, if someone got shut down under those terms, would you tell them exactly where the line was? Or would you keep your detection methods to yourself?

<comment><USER6> I would shut it off _with explanation_.

"Your site has been turned off due to hosting child porn, in contravention of local/international law XXXXXX, per complaint YYYYYY".

Then they can at least dialogue.

Worst case scenario: the VPS is shut off automatically, I get a semi-urgent notice, and I reply to the customer with further details as soon as possible. And they would get a message letting them as much.

<comment><USER8> Keep in mind that apparently the OP does know why he was shut off. From another comment here:

[http://i.imgur.com/1pxIxiN.png](http://i.imgur.com/1pxIxiN.png)

Just because the blog post doesn't say why doesn't mean he doesn't know why. Only that he's selectively sharing the information.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, I know there's more going on.

I still think it's important to reiterate as much as possible why a service was shut off, both for a customer understanding viewpoint, AND from a "cover your ass" viewpoint.

It can't hurt to say "As stated in the past email, your server was shut off due to YYYYY", rather than just "Game over, man. Stop emailing us." equivalents.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Notice that the author doesn't address the issue of whether they actually were violating the TOS and/or AUP, or what the alleged violations actually were. My interpretation is that the author likely was legitimately violating the TOS, because otherwise he would have mentioned how dumb the allegations are.

If the author was breaking the AUP, I don't feel very sorry for him. If someone's doing something that legitimately violates acceptable use, they probably should be shut down without prior notification.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey thanks for the comment. To let you know the account has 2 droplets which serves 2 mobile apps and does crawling 20-30 sites hourly. That's it actually and also the Dropbox script that i mention.

<comment><USER9> $20 says you're ignoring someone's robots.txt.

<comment><USER10> As far as I'm aware you're never actually required to follow it? It's just good manners.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've just skimmed over the TOS. It seems a bit atypical:

> DigitalOcean reserves the right to modify the Terms of Service without > notice.

Well... that more or less invalidates the sanctity of the terms.

> DigitalOcean also reserves the right to terminate a customers account if > they are targeted by malicious activity from other parties.

What is the justification for that? Simply being the target of malicious activity means that your account can be terminated? It's not as though one is responsible for malicious activity directed against them.

> DIGITALOCEAN DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, OR STATUTORY, > REGARDING THE SERVICES PROVIDED HEREUNDER, INCLUDING ANY WARRANTIES OF > MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ...

I see this a lot with software, but doesn't this mean that DigitalOcean has no actual obligation to provide the cloud or VPS services they advertise? I didn't see any such clause in the EC2 TOS, but I did not look very hard.

Is this the usual sort of agreement for such a service?

<comment><USER12> >Well... that more or less invalidates the sanctity of the terms.

You'll find the plurality (if not majority) of ToS's out there include such a statement.

>What is the justification for that? Simply being the target of malicious activity means that your account can be terminated? It's not as though one is responsible for malicious activity directed against them.

They don't want to deal with the networking implications of a large scale DDoS. They're providing low priced VPS services, not high bandwidth, high load custom racks. Also, they "reserve the right" not the "always exercise the right". DO likely won't kick you for a small DoS/DDoS but sustained attacks take much more manpower to deal with than you're paying them for.

>I see this a lot with software, but doesn't this mean that DigitalOcean has no actual obligation to provide the cloud or VPS services they advertise?

No, it means you can't sue DO because your VPS went down and you lost 10K is sales because customers couldn't access your storefront. It's an indemnity clause.

>Is this the usual sort of agreement for such a service?

Yes, unless you're paying a good deal of money for something like a Colo with 1hour SLA or an AWS instance with a high SLA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This happened to a friend who runs a DO server on July 22nd. The server had been running for several weeks when it was suddenly taken down out of nowhere for over 4 hours to "verify" the account. There wasn't any warning and my friend immediately provided what they had requested.

Their response? They shut down the server because of "unusual traffic" coming from the server which wasn't even being used yet.. but there was "outbound traffic about 977.38 Mbps at its peak at around 2013-07-22 14:50:00UTC"

They need to fully verify accounts before letting anyone create a server. You shouldn't just take down a server out of nowhere, for several hours, after it's been running for weeks.

<comment><USER14> > "unusual traffic" coming from the server which wasn't even being used yet..

Does this not sound suspicious to you? Maybe the server was compromised. "Unused" servers usually don't generate 970 Mbps traffic randomly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've been unfortunate enough to be DDOS-ed on both linode and digital ocean for some of my sites. suffice to say, linode handles the ddos much more gracefully than digital ocean. digital ocean promptly bans you for TOS violation and locks your account after 3 DDOS attempts. I know most people don't have sites that are DDOS-ed often, but if you do run that risk, just know that digital ocean will most likely have you moving pretty quickly.

<comment><USER16> That is troubling to know. I have my pretty important website running on DO, and though this is only for the short term, I might have to accelerate my plans to move off DO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I sure wouldn't mind hearing the other side of the story. I use DO for a few servers and recommend their services to people all the time.

<comment><AUTHOR> I also want to hear their story. But they are really not letting me know anything.

<comment><USER17> Sorry to hear that. Surely they'd at least let you know which part of their TOS/AUP you violated.

I had to go through their 'verification procedure,' as well. I thought it was odd but if it keeps prices low due to fraud, I really don't mind.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Using a smiling icon like the fish and then issuing a copypaste/boilerplate message is insulting. If you are going to deliver non-informing messages, do not SMILE in you icon.

This is nitpicking but in the end, you (DO) have a smiling icon because you expect you support group smiles. If your support group is a machine, well then... use this one.

              ##      ##
            ##############
          ####  ######  ####
        ######################
        ##  ##############  ##
        ##  ##          ##  ##
              ####  ####

</comment><comment><USER19> "Please Provide us with the following: ... 1\. Your public Twitter handle 2\. Your blog 3\. Your company or personal website 4\. Your public Facebook profile"

What? Is this a common procedure now?

<comment><USER20> I guess I'm a spambot. I have no twitter handle, no personal blog, my company website is a large corporate site with no mention of me, and my facebook profile is completely barren.

<comment><USER21> Same here I don't have any of the mentioned items.

It's so weird to see things like 'Twitter account' and 'Facebook account' being 'assumed'.

They are just two private companies why should we (directly/indirectly) force everyone to have one?

Email I'm fine with, it's a open technology.

It's only a matter of time until we turn Twitter and Facebook into more open technologies like email. I sure hope to see that happen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Yes, let's refuse to support a company that is held in fairly high regard because of one data point, displayed in a highly one-sided way

</comment><comment><USER22> I think their service being so cheap is more reason for a plan B in case one of your accounts go down. There are so many options for making this happen. And again, all pretty cheap. With a good back-up / fail-over plan, this shouldn't even be much of a blip. Personally, I never contact support. If I have a problem with one provider, I'm a button push / command line command away from moving everything over to another provider.

<comment><USER22> > First of all, the support which was really helpful and kind at the beginning > has became much worse and somewhat hard to understand.

How many times do you contact support? For me to contact support, there has to be a problem with the actual service itself. That is, it's an obvious problem that is outside of my control. I have been running VM's with quite a few providers, certainly all the big names. I almost never have to contact support (I would have to think pretty hard about a time that I have done this.) These services are usually quite solid and if there is a problem, usually there is some sort of status which lets you know there is a problem so that you don't have to ask.

For me, having to contact support even once would be a big problem. Having to contact support often enough that I have noticed that support was once good but then turned bad would have been enough for me to have long since moved on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I run my website on a DO VPS. I have been supremely satisfied with the service.

Did you find out what the breach of terms of service they spoke about was? Unless I missed it the article...

<comment><USER24> I think that was the core of the OP's complaint: he was shut down without any explanation. Would be interesting to hear DO's side of things.

<comment><USER23> I feel like there is more to this story than we are being led to believe. I'll definitely keep a eye on this as it develops. So far I've found DO support to be heavenly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> There are many illegal things you can do with a web server, and this puts the hosting company at risk

1- Host/distribute copyrighted material

2- Run a torrent client and distribute copyrighted material

3- DOS attacks (especially when you can create several droplets for a limited period of time)

The hosting provider is like a bank, and has the right to ask you where you got that information from; and for what you are using it (though a bank doesn't ask you what you use your money for)

I think it's acceptable that the hosting provider ask for your activity and you provide a response for that (which you didn't).

<comment><USER26> So what am I paying for if the hosting providers are just passing off their own problems to me?

<comment><USER27> If you're breaking their TOS, having your account suspended is your problem, not theirs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Either way, this is NOT how you deal with a customer who supposedly violated terms and conditions. That email response was atrocious. Arrogant and bullying. No sensitivity to whatever plight he may have, or reprieve offered. No 'we'll call you directly'. Nothing! I am about to make a BIG decision for my company and DO was in the discussion. It is not, not! Companies like this irritate the heck out of me and have no place doing business on a large scale. Keep up the attitude boys! ;)

</comment><comment><USER29> Situations like this will keep getting worse and worse with our current attitude towards personal data on cloud. My personal thought on situations like this has always been that locking somebody's data is both unethical and should be considered a crime by law. Service providers have full rights to refuse providing servicing to somebody but they don't have a right to seize somebody's personal data.

</comment><comment><USER30> Still waiting for an answer from raiyu. On my point of view, the problem is here DO did not notify DO user before blocking their account. It's an unexpected situation for business owners. As sdogruyol mentioned he has 25K users responsible for. At least he deserves a meaningful explanation and a notification before blocking his account.

<comment><USER31> I am also eagerly waiting for an answer.. I hope DO makes an official statement on this matter.

Personally, I have had a great experience using digital ocean. Now I am terrified of moving forward with them if they proceed with this "shut down first, ask questions later" pattern.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> It's irrelevant, I suppose, but I'm sorta curious how big this database was (or, more specifically, how much traffic he was generating to Dropbox).

There was also no mention in this article (except in one of the screenshots) about whatever -- "[a] UDP flood or so" "at the beginning of this month".

It would certainly suck to have your account locked out when you're serving production sites but it sounds like we haven't heard all of the story (we obviously haven't heard DO's, of course).

<comment><AUTHOR> The DB is pretty small actually just 10 MBish. Is this really a traffic flood for DO ?

<comment><USER33> 10MB once no, but lets say hypothetically, if the dropbox api returned an error or wasn't available which denied your request but your script didn't account for it and it constantly kept making the request over and over and over. The 10mb would soon add up.

Also, are you sure it wasn't something else, not the dropbox db script which could have caused problems?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm pretty sure that it's nothing else and i've never used the Dropbox script after i got the first ticket.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Anyone still lingering here will probably want to see the new post from OP: [http://serdardogruyol.com/?p=137](http://serdardogruyol.com/?p=137) and the corresponding discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6447152](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6447152). DO has responded directly.

</comment><comment><USER35> I run a site on DO for about 2 months - last week I got a similar mail to "verify" my account. Luckily they had not taken down my droplet. I am willing to give them the benefit of doubt here - but I am preparing my Plan B right now in case they decide to "verify" me again and take my server down.

We really need to hear from DO to hear the other side of the story though.

</comment><comment><USER36> Probably they "think" (never thought that I would use it in the IT world) that you are running some torrent client or anything like that. It's very common in EU to use this kind of hosts to download torrents and avoid problems with the law

</comment><comment><USER37> My (a couple weeks old) Ubuntu 10.04 server locked up, no ssh or VPN access but could ping it. I contacted support and was told to destroy the droplet and create a new one. Still have no idea why it happened or how to avoid it on my production server.

<comment><USER38> I had the same problem. I was messing with my iptables and messed something up to the point where there was no network. I contacted support and they installed a Ubuntu Live image. (Something that has to be requested)

I used the Live image of my droplet to mount the disk, copy the databases, and websites. Once I was satisfied I got everything I destroyed the droplet.

Before you destroy your droplet, request this!

<comment><USER39> DO doesn't have a console access utility like Linode's [Lish]?

[Lish]: ([https://library.linode.com/using-lish-the-linode- shell](https://library.linode.com/using-lish-the-linode-shell))?

<comment><USER37> Yes they do, but it wasn't working and would time out.

<comment><USER38> Try a different browser. I've used Chrome Mac, Firefox Win, Firefox Mac, Safari. I just logged in using Safari (mac) 6.0.5 and found it working while 6.0.4 did not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> For $5 Digital Ocean gives me 20 GB of storage. But Dreamhost shared hosting gives me UNLIMITED disk storage for the same price. Does this mean that I should write off VPS/dedicated servers since they give such poor disk space?

</comment><comment><USER41> By this standard nobody should use Google, Paypal and many other services.

<comment><USER42> ...which is true.

<comment><USER41> Agreed, just pointing out that the lack of support for free services is not specific to DO.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> On a side note, I looked through that database dumper script and isn't it just a giant hassle to script non-interactive authentications with OAuth? Hope I never have to do that again.

</comment><comment><USER44> Dumping your DB daily to dropbox doesnt sound like a production solution. It looks like you violated their TOC somehow but dont state what you did.

This honestly sounds like growing pains, now that we are "taking off" we need to make sure users arent abusing our service. Lets do a user verification process for certain instances that are flagged for whatever reason.

I have experienced similar verify account problems with Pay Pal/eBay. While its a burden on people who are doing legitimate business, if it keeps spammers/scammers off of a service then it is worth it.

</comment><comment><USER45> If I stop using any hosting provider that someone has complained about online, what exactly are my options now?

</comment><comment><USER46> So OP went public, then claimed he didn't want to go public (deleted message) but still encourages people to drop DO based on his unhappiness..

Op seems very childish and not very forthcoming.

</comment><comment><USER47> Good to know, I'll migrate and spread the word, this is not acceptable.

<comment><USER48> Or you could wait for some sufficiently concrete details as to what really happened and make an informed decision instead of a knee-jerk response.</comment></comment>


Tomorrow's Fortnite Update Not Coming for iPhones, Epic: 'Matter of Principle' - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/epic-games-refuses-to-collude-with-apples-monopoly-whi-1844854914 <comment><AUTHOR> This is quite a ballsy move, since they literally told a judge to her face a few days ago that not being able to release this update would cause them incalculable harm. (In their hearing they asked for a temporary restraining order stopping apple from blocking their updates on precisely these grounds. Request was denied since the judge ruled their problem was of their own making, and thus something they could easily fix themselves with no need fo a TRO).</comment>


Ask HN: What are you reading? - <AUTHOR> What book would you recommend to read next? <comment><USER2> I'm reading a book called "じょうぶな子どもをつくる基本食": Joubuna Kodomo-o Tsukuru Kihonshoku. ("Base Diet for making Strong/Healthy Kids").

It's a book about child nutrition that disparages all foreign influences in Japanese eating and encourages everything traditional. Steamed rice, miso soup, tsukemono and so on. Plus various parenting advice around food as well as not.

Non-traditional foods influenced by foreign cultures, in particular Europe and America, are blamed for all sorts of ills and ailments of the skin, bowel and whatnot, not to mention cancer.

Quite entertaining.

[https://www.amazon.co.JP/じょうぶな子どもをつくる基本食-幕内- 秀夫/dp/4072292281](https://www.amazon.co.JP/じょうぶな子どもをつくる基本食-幕内- 秀夫/dp/4072292281)

<comment><USER3> Interesting. Reminds me of the life story of a safety inspector that was born and lived in Okinawa. He basically went through a period where rice was mostly for the rich and then through WWII as a child to which americans prescribed a ration of milk and cheese to kids to improve nutritian. He was fairly short in stature and said he regretted not taking the milk and cheese as he though it would have helped him grow taller. Okinawans were famed for living a really long time though. I think the running theory at the time was due to pork and that pickle looking vegetable (can't think of the name).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> 1) Man's Search For Meaning - Viktor Frankl 2) Can't hurt me - David Goggins 3) Meditations -Marcus Aurelius

#LifeChanging

<comment><USER5> I just finished Can't Hurt Me, it was a solid read though not quite the kind of thing I usually go for. I can't say I want to follow Goggins-level suffering by his example, but reading about his commitment to self-improvement and accomplishment really drove home just how far one can push on sheer willpower and hard work. I've certainly taken some actionable learnings. I hope you're enjoying the book.

<comment><USER4> I loved the book. Totally agree with you. It's not about being like him; it about finding your own limits and hopefully in the process do more that you could have ever imagined.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Programming on Purpose - best book I read on software design so far.

Behave: the biology of humans at our best and worst - explaing human behavior from many points of view, well written and mind blowing.

<comment><USER7> Which volume of Programming on Purpose are you reading?

<comment><USER6> I read the first one, "essays on software design".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am currently reading How to Read a Book. I would recommend it as it covers how to read different kinds of text and analytical reading.

Its a practical book

<comment><USER8> Ironically I started that one but never managed to finish it.

I still got something out of it though, so I suppose that's one way to read a book.

The basic advice I took from it is to treat a book like it's an artifact that you're investigating, almost like a city. You start by looking at the map to get an overview, then you can visit some of the major attractions, and then you can start to spend more time really getting to know some neighborhoods.

So with a book you familiarize yourself with the table of contents to know roughly how the argument or presentation proceeds; then you might for example skim the conclusion to see more clearly what the author is trying to accomplish; then you can pick a particular chapter or section that's of definite interest to you; and so on.

(This is all centered on reading for learning, not for pleasure.)

It's a lot like how to read a program. A book is presented much more linearly than a program, but actually nothing is really linear. Narrative plots may be, but you don't have to follow the plot of a monograph.

It makes me weirdly excited to think about book-length arguments as _being_ programs, or functions in a kind of stoner misreading of the Curry-Howard isomorphism. So maybe you can even make an analysis of the "data structures" and "algorithms" used by a certain book. You might see one book as resembling a compiler, another as resembling a compression program. This may stretch the analogy too far.

But certainly books refer in a similar way that programs do. They make calls out to external sources, hopefully unambiguously declared and semantically versioned. Sometimes it's crucial to actually check those references. Truly reading a book might be a larger project than just reading one particular book.

I think there could be a deeper argument about relating the freedom of thought in the public sphere of literacy to the free software movement, which you can see a glimpse of in Richard Stallman's essay _The Right to Read_...

<comment><USER7> I am still early on in the book, but I agree I have gotten something out of it already. I always read the preface and the dust cover, but I never thought to look at the table of contents.

The part I am most interested in is in regards to the analytical reading and discerning the structure of the arguments.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Superintelligence - Nick Bostrom

The most cogent survey of the existential risk posed by superintelligent AGI that I've come across.

</comment><comment><USER10> The Hidden Life of Trees [https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Life-Trees- Communicate_Discove...](https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Life-Trees- Communicate_Discoveries-Secret/dp/1771642483)

</comment><comment><USER11> City of a Million Dreams: A History of New Orleans at Year 300 -> Great insight into the history of New Orleans, and how the diverse culture from its beginning has shaped the city we love today.

and

A Confederacy of Dunces -> Hilarious yet well-written book.

</comment><comment><USER12> The messy middle by Scott Belsky

The founder of Behance covers the journey towards product market fit. It's where most startup's fail and yet very little has been written about that part of the software entrepreneurs journey.

</comment><comment><USER13> Seveneves. By Neal Stevenson. Lots of great ideas. A bit slow at times.

</comment><comment><USER14> I recently read the short story Omnilingual by H Beam Piper (1957).

A planet becomes extinct due to climate change and a team of archaelogists are sent to study its civilisation.

</comment><comment><USER15> Why we sleep

Great readable book with lots of experiments, results and conclusions. It also made me stop drinking coffee after ~2 pm

</comment><comment><USER16> Lean Startup.

This is an eye opener for me as a SaaS newbie. A must read for anyone trying to build a startup.

</comment><comment><USER5> Right now I'm reading Essentials of Discrete Mathematics and going through the exercises.

</comment><comment><USER17> The Go Programming Language

</comment><comment><USER18> Skin in the Game by Taleb

</comment><comment><USER19> 13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do by Amy Morin

</comment><comment><USER20> The Fractal Geometry of Nature, by Benoit Mandlebrot

</comment><comment><USER21> \- Thinking Fast and Slow \- Dollar Trap.

</comment><comment><USER22> Permutation city

</comment><comment><USER23> Egypt Before The Pharaohs - Michael A Hoffman

</comment><comment><USER24> Self-Reliance by Ralph Waldo Emerson

</comment><comment><USER25> The Transparent Society by David Brin.

</comment><comment><USER26> Dune</comment>


Miles of Ice Collapsing into the Sea - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/18/climate/antarctica-ice-melt-climate-change.html?_r=0 <comment><USER2> Does anyone read these articles, thinking of the immense forces at work and how the feedback loop might be beyond repair, and it trivializes everything going on in your life?

I feel this way, and its part despair, part terror.

<comment><USER3> Hubris!

You presume you can, or even attempt to, "repair" the nature?

What does that even mean?

I commend you for realizing how complex nature is, with its never ending loops and constant change, and our temporal lot within it. But that is a cause for awe and celebration, not freezing in terror and despair!

It certainly doesn't "trivialize everything in your life" \-- you're part of the grand show, nature's "optimization grind" toward maximum entropy.

<comment><USER4> > _What does that even mean?_

It's actually a pretty simple concept. Humans need particular conditions to live and flourish. We want to maintain and improve those conditions.

Nature is damn big and complex, but it's not beyond the reach of our influence.

<comment><USER3> Influence, sure. "Repair", hubris. A cry for a static world that never was and never will be.

Reminds me of the doomsayers that claim humans will "destroy" the earth :D

Mind you, mine is not a call to "do nothing". On the contrary, I say there's no reason to be terrified and in despair (unless you really consider the heat death of the universe as the final outcome). There's lots we can do until then -- it's an awesome ride! Humans are fabulously ingenious, and life fabulously resilient.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can anyone explain how the market forces of the real estate market would address this? I assume flood-risk property will become less valuable long before it actually floods, and insurance will become more expensive or unobtainable before it floods too. My feeling is that people would have already moved out before it's actually uninhabitable. Is that not going to happen? Maybe stragglers will remain because it'll be where the cheapest housing is?

<comment><USER6> Markets won't solve anything. We are talking about the see "contaminating" very large areas of arable land with brackish water, lowering fresh water supplies and preventing to cultivate a lot of what is currently done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Eagerly waiting/hoping for a massive backlash against the scroll hijacking trend in web design for high production articles like this.

</comment><comment><USER8> dupe: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14372143](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14372143)</comment>


Ask HN: What makes a good autonomous vehicles engineer? - <AUTHOR> There are a lot of aspects behind the science of autonomous vehicles such Computer vision,  perception, motion planning, and control, .. etc. However, making it to this industry is still not clear to many of engineers. I have some papers such `End to End Learning for Self-Driving Cars` https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.07316.pdf, but I hope that one of the autonomous vehicles engineers chime in and describe what it takes to enter this industry. What are the skills needed to be hired. Is Drivelss cars Nano-degree helpful ? <comment><USER2> Someone who is self-driven.</comment>


Cost of converting entire U.S. to electric cars? Zero. - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/philg/2008/05/27/cost-of-converting-entire-us-to-electric-cars-zero/ <comment><USER2> Another exercise in utopian ego-centric social planning using back-of-the- napkin stats that ignores all side effects. There are an infinite number of these pseudo-analyses that can be done, and they're easy because you don't need to collect any hard evidence.

For example, I propose that we start a forced diet and exercise program for the United States. The cost of this program will be negative $25 trillion. It will pay for itself in reduced medical costs. The present value of our Medicare obligations are around $50 trillion, so let's say we save half of that.

I could churn out another 50 of these in 50 minutes. It's easy - just imagine yourself as an all-knowing dictator (and since you already think you know what's best for everybody, you're half-way there!) and then pull numbers out of your ear.

Let's ban alcohol! Net savings = the amount we spend on alcohol each year + reduced health costs. And it worked so well the first time! Heck, let's ban fast food!

Of course, all of these ignore the intrinsic value that comes from not living in a society where some politician has control over all your consumption choices, but Americans long ago stopped caring about their own freedom.

<comment><USER3> Very well put, Prrometheus, but perhaps some more subsidies for electric cars would be in order as a softer way to move in that direction and would be justified as a measure of national defense (cutting off the funding to terrorists and Islamo-fascists by driving down the price of oil) and environmentalism?

In general, I'm all for free market solutions and only free market solutions, but they don't work as well when you're talking about defense and things that are in the commons like air and water.

<comment><USER2> >In general, I'm all for free market solutions and only free market solutions, but they don't work as well when you're talking about defense and things that are in the commons like air and water.

I understand the "public good" argument in favor of governments, but when I see governments producing so many "public bads" I question whether they are doing any net good at all, let alone enough good to justify their cost.

For example, the United States "defense" department doesn't produce defense, but rather produces useless destabilizing wars on the other side of the globe. Is that worth the $600 billion that we spend on defense each year? Hardly. Congress just passed a $300 billion farm bill to subsidize people with average family incomes of over $200,000. An effective use of my money? I don't think so. They spend an additional $100 billion or so each year to spy on me and make sure I don't get high. I'd like my money back.

Yes, I am an anarchist. It's a pleasure to meet you.

<comment><USER4> "All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what _have_ the Romans done for _us_?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> During WWII, we were cut off from natural rubber, so we invented synthetic rubber.

In the ecology movement of the late 1960's, the federal government mandated removal of all lead from gasoline by 1975. We made it. (Anyone remember "Leaded or unleaded"?)

In the first oil scare in 1973, Detroit responded by pulling 2 old inventions off the shelf, front wheel drive and fuel injection. Effectively doubling the world oil supply within 5 years.

Why should now be any different? If the federal government mandated all new vehicles being electric only by 2014 (grandfathering in all existing vehicles), we'd make it. And the problem would gradually resolve, like every other problem.

The only thing stopping it is special interests. Anyone in congress supporting this would probably cut off his own fundraising lifeline.

<comment><USER2> >Why should now be any different? If the federal government mandated all new vehicles being electric only by 2014 (grandfathering in all existing vehicles), we'd make it. And the problem would gradually resolve, like every other problem.

How about if we wait for the technology to be ready instead of setting an arbitrary deadline? And what's so important about switching to electric cars that it can't wait 10 years?

<comment><USER5> Sometimes, the arbitrary deadline is the thing that forces the technology to be ready.

Do you think JFK had any idea if the technology would be ready when he declared the goal of a man on the moon before the end of the 1960s?

We need more vision and less debate.

<comment><USER2> > We need more vision and less debate.

If "vision" means rash feel-good actions and "debate" means thoughtful consideration of all view points, then I respectfully disagree with you. I think we need more debate and less "vision".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Cute idea, but a a lot of the details don't even stand up to a basic reality test.

For example: _"value of a used car, if exported to Latin America or China: $5,000"_

Does he seriously think the US can sell the entire set of automobiles currently on the road to Latin America or China at that price?

<comment><USER7> I didn't see him use that number in his analysis (other than list it), so it doesn't seem important either way.

<comment><USER6> Sure he does-- he subtracts it from the (assumed) $20,000 price of a mass- produced electric car, to give a net price of $15,000 per vehicle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Yes you can convert everything from oil-based to renewables, but what about cost per kWh? At the moment, renewable energy sources just can't compete with oil even with the current high prices.

That's not to say that entrepreneurs aren't making headway and closing the gap... Soon. Can't wait!

<comment><USER9> The electric grid gets cleaner even without renewables. Clean coal is a rapidly growing area in electricity production and nuclear production continues to increase.

Having to create electricity to meet our energy demand is a fantastic problem to have. Energy independence should be an economic goal of any developed country. You don't want ANY foreign control of 7% of your GDP, let alone a cartel like OPEC.

<comment><USER2> >Energy independence should be an economic goal of any developed country.

Why? The whole idea of comparative advantage is that you can increase your overall standard of living by making the things that you are best at and importing everything else. The only reason why you would want to be independent is if you planned on fighting a war with all the other countries in the world at the same time (granted, this could be the policy of our current US administration). Interdependence creates peace.

If China attacks Taiwan, they will have the huge percentage of their GDP that consists of trade with the US on the line. So I consider outright military conflict unlikely. However, if we were as "independent" as you suggest I think war would be much more likely.

Why again is independence a good thing?

<comment><USER10> Uh, sorry. I think you've got it completely backwards. Why do you think the framers were so concerned about being "entangled in foreign alliances"? The kind of entanglements you propose will prevent war are exactly the kind we should be avoiding because they could very well draw us into wars we don't want to be in.

"Energy Independence" is probably a misnomer - but the point is to change our economics so that we aren't forced to provide advantage to our geostrategic adversaries. Because our economy is so dependent on oil, we currently have little choice but to fund those who currently fund our (the U.S. and the rest of the West) enemies. The desire is simply to make oil a commodity like any other, and not one that can make or break the U.S. In other words, we need something to give us the ability to tell the Saudis to kiss off.

<comment><USER2> >In other words, we need something to give us the ability to tell the Saudis to kiss off.

And then we can invade the Saudis! Brilliant!

<comment><USER10> What I'm arguing is that being able to tell the Saudis to kiss off means we won't ever have a reason to invade them.

Realize I'm using "the Saudis" as a proxy here. But further:

Can you imagine a scenario in which the following things are true:

a) we buy, say, 40% less oil overall

b) we have the same tensions with SA and Iran as we do now

c) SA and Iran are as rich as they are now (translate: capable of financing terror groups to fight proxy wars) ?

I can't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The biggest problem that I see with this idea is a social one, and not an economic one. It can be summed up in one word:

Pride.

Just look at how tenaciously consumers cling to SUVs and large luxury cars, even though they surely know better. People who can't even afford decent food or housing spend ridiculous amounts of money on excessive vehicles.

I'd imagine you'll have to pry the wheels of their gas-guzzlers from their cold dead hands before they get in some cheap, mass-produced, plain-vanilla electric transportation, virtually devoid of status and "bling."

<comment><USER2> >I'd imagine you'll have to pry the wheels of their gas-guzzlers from their cold dead hands before they get in some cheap, mass-produced, plain-vanilla electric transportation, virtually devoid of status and "bling."

Why can't you have electric transportation AND status and "bling"?

<comment><USER12> I'd say it's starting to happen already.

When I see a Hummer these days, my first thought is "chump", and wonder what the price of a fill up is at current rates. I think among some high earning demographics, the car with the most cachet is already the Prius.

Of course, then you have the ginormous Hybrid SUVs being pushed now by Detroit. Do people really not understand that whatever gas you save through the "hybridness" is more than offset by the few tons of metal they're driving around, compared to a smaller non-hybrid?

(Yes, this question is rhetorical.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If all the people in the US would drive electric cars, you obviously need electricity to do so. Let's assume the power stations use oil the generate electricity. How much oil would you need to keep all these electric cars in the US going? Would that be more or less oil the US consumes now for keeping its cars running?

Let's assume we would all drive a Tesla: <http://www.teslamotors.com>. Who will do the math?

<comment><USER7> Except we are in the US, which is blessed with 27% of the world's coal reserves (by far the largest; Russia is second with 17%).[1] So there is no reason we would burn oil to generate power.

Even better would be generating all that electricity with Nuclear power, since the "middle east" of Uranium is Canada and Australia, with 28% and 22% of global production, respectively.

[1] <http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/coalreserves.html>

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Supply>

<comment><USER13> Of course there are better options than to use oil to generate electricity. But what I am interested in is: what is more energy efficient? x million combustion engines or a few centralized power station plus x million electric cars?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Wired published a quick oil reserves map the other day: <http://www.wired.com/special_multimedia/2008/oilreserves>

Most interesting find: Canada is #2 in the world with 179 billion barrels. Why are we getting our oil from the middle east? And what % comes from up north?

<comment><USER10> See the Dilbert toon on fungibility:<http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2006-02-19/>

<comment><USER15> That is the most retarded use of flash ever.

<comment><USER10> Agree, but the old site is inaccessible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Why make the government pay for the entire thing? As oil and gas prices increase, the costs of purchasing an electric vehicle are going to be on parity with the costs of purchasing an electric vehicle. I imagine that the Big 3 in Detroit are wringing their hands over Toyota's success with the Prius.

And, with the bevy of new electric vehicles that are getting released in the next couple of years, you're going to be seeing more and more of them on the roads. even without massive governement intervention.

I for one am actually glad that gasoline prices are increasing. I think that we should tax gasoline heavily like most of Europe does. Do you think they drive around in those tiny little cars because they are comfortable? Increased gasoline prices decrease consumption, and increase innovation in fuel efficiency and alternative energy vehicles.

</comment><comment><USER17> You'd want to do this transition over time and give the cars away in a lottery, in a way calculated to upset the financial markets as little as possible. Saudi Arabia would NOT be happy with this arrangement. They would be very, very angry in fact; we have been such close allies. I would not like to see them angry.

</comment><comment><USER3> Cost of bureaucracy, inefficiency and fraud in such a huge government program: $2 trillion

</comment><comment><USER18> Little over simplifying the situation but its fun to read and think the way he does.

</comment><comment><USER19> so we charge those cars with what? Pedal power? No, more than likely we charge them by burning fuel in some power plant miles and miles down the grid, losing energy in the process due to storage and conversion.

</comment><comment><USER20> Cost to produce the energy? Cost to upgrade the existing stations?

<comment><USER21> The cars can be charged at night, when the base power stations are producing electricity far below their capacity. (In many places, electricity is cheaper at night for that very reason). I remember reading somewhere that 70% of the US fleet can be converted without needing more power plants.

<comment><USER22> That works so well for folks who vacation by car.

<comment><USER21> How often do you vacation? You can rent a gas guzzler for those two weeks of the year.

<comment><USER22> I vacation more than two weeks a year. I take trips on weekends too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> yeah, because the markets often do things where no profit is involved right? there's no evil conspiracy. people want gasoline, companies supply it and make money.

<comment><USER17> Exactly, this is a clear example of the imperfections of capitalism. Do you think it would be good for a powerful globalized government to fund free electrical cars for the people?

<comment><USER23> see this is the problem I have with progressives. Your entire paradigm relies on collectivism. No, the government shouldn't take my money and decide how to spend it "for the good of the people". People should decide for themselves and the market will be forced to reflect people's real desires rather than some artificial notion of "good". Who are you to decide what's good for me?

Gasoline isn't a problem. Eventually supply will be constricted and demand will slow down. It's not going to be The Grapes of Wrath overnight, we'll be forced to gradually move to more efficient transportation. Economics trumps feel good social programs.

<comment><USER17> I'm only 20% collectivist, the rest is ideal Austrian economics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> One by one:

Problem #1: (Price/Barrel: $130) Does he seriously think that there is no chance that the price of oil will ever reduce from this plateau?

Problem #2: (5% interest) The interest payment for a long term loan of $8 trillion are going to be a lot more than just 5%.

Problem #3: (cost of a new electric car, if mass-produced: $20,000) So... an electric lexus can be mass produced and sold for $20,000. How about a Ferrari?

Problem #4: Administrative costs: Who does the book keeping.

Problem #5: Who pays for the massive amounts of electricity used by these electric cars?

Problem #6: Who pays for the infrastructure required to keep these cars charged?

Problem #7: Who pays for the massive infrastructure to maintain these awesome cars after they are manufactured and bought?

Problem #8: If it really was so cheap and efficient to convert straight to electric cars? why isn't anybody doing this in scale?

In total: A very haphazard analysis of the cost of converting to electric cars.

<comment><USER17> 1: certainly I would bet on the price of oil increasing over time

2: The US government bonds aren't very high interest rate.

3: $100,000 for something Ferrari class in speed, see the Tesla Roadster

4: The government

5: The consumers and electricity companies. The coal lobby would be in favor of a plan like this, they are itching to start burning all the extra coal we have in the USA.

6:The consumers

7: The consumers and the mechanics repairing the cars in the free market.

8: Because this type of thing requires strong government authoritarianism.

<comment><USER2> >2: The US government bonds aren't very high interest rate.

Currently US government bonds have a low interest rate. However, we also would be doubling our debt on this plan, and inflation expectations have been ticking up. Furthermore, such desperation for energy independence might be looked down on by international investors who already view the actions of the US government as reckless. What might the US be planning in the Middle East that they need to take such rash actions to get off of oil for?

All these factors could swing interest rates higher.

> 4: The government

Administrative costs by the government will be non-zero.

>8: Because this type of thing requires strong government authoritarianism.

Actually, I just don't think the technology is there yet. If scale production was the only obstacle in the way of the electric car right now, then it would require an investment in the $1 billion magnitude to start up efficient production, something within the reach of modern car companies. Economical, comfortable, useful, and safe electric cars are not available with modern battery technology. As soon as the technology is ready to make an attractive electric car, I expect to see consumers converting to them voluntarily and at- scale in the free market.

Now if we want to force everybody to convert to an inferior and immature product right away, then we do need strong government authoritarianism, yes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> the technology exists, it's been done, the oil lobby will not allow this to happen, too many rich people (Hi George W. Bush and family) would lose their fortunes...

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_RAV4_EV></comment>


Giorgio Armani didn't accomplish anything until his forties - <AUTHOR> http://www.gq.com/style/celebrities/201506/giorgio-armani-interview <comment><USER2> Most of the commenters focus on a stronger financial position and/or industry knowledge as reasons to be a successful entrepreneur beyond the barrier of 40s.

But the man himself provides reasons which I find much more profound (and that being in midforties myself, I'm glad to relate to:

> Your forties are the moment when you start to become aware. It's just the > beginning. I've always believed that to confirm your way of thinking takes > time. It takes experimenting. You have to confront different chapters of > your life

Touched me deep enough to create an HN account just to comment.

<comment><USER3> Aware of what?

I often find people in their 40s' to be deeply troubled, tired, and grappling for power or ego.

Anecdotally I have encountered more people in the 50s-90s range with a calmer, wiser, and altruistic awareness of self and others. I imagine it has something to do with the thought of mortality nullifying their materialistic or egoistic pursuits, and some sort of realization that we're all here together on a big rock hurdling through space so maybe baking a batch of cookies for friends is a good idea worth spending time on.

<comment><USER2> Of course, there's plenty of people in their 40s experiencing the struggles you describe. But, as a matter of fact, I've met as many of them in the 20s and 30s range with the same problems (maybe not so tired, but troubled and egomaniac nonetheless).

In the context of entrepreneurship, however, I find that those traits are much less prominent, regardless of the age.

In my case, today I just sold my part of the company I founded 10 years ago to my cofounding partner. Not a big, glorious exit, BTW. Just the opportunity to try again, and get better results this time.

Being 46, I do feel much more aware now that I felt 10 years ago. Aware of my strengths and aware of my limits. And aware of my motivations.

However, I must confess that, ten years ago, I had the same image that you describe about fortysomethings. That's why I decided to start my own company then, to avoid becoming one of them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This gives me the hope that with 35 I still have a chance to break the chains, get out of employee role and start my own business, because I feel so ready for it... But then again, there are mouths to feed at home, so... shut up and back to reading this feature requirement...

<comment><USER5> It wasn't until my kids were adults that I was able to make the jump into my lifelong dream of self employment. But I spent a lot of time training myself and laying the groundwork before that day. Keep pushing for your dream. The fight isn't over until you quit fighting! Age isn't a big deal unless you allow it to. If you keep learning and keep striving and keep exercising that will keep you young in all the ways that matter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I just turned 40 this year. I have 7 failed businesses behind me and one that is still alive, doing well.

One thing I have noticed is that a better understanding of how the world ACTUALLY works has been a huge help in avoiding the many pitfalls that await the intrepid explorer. And since there is no manual that explains all of this, you can only really get it through hard experience. And to make matters worse, once it's internalized, it just becomes part of your background thought process, making it difficult to explain to others because you hardly even notice it's there until you see someone about to make a huge mistake.

</comment><comment><USER7> I've always wanted to write a quickie script that collected famous people pages (such as Nobel Prize winners) from Wikipedia and subtracted their birthdate from the year of their first major accomplishment...I suspect in something like Nobel Prize winners, the ages would skew middle-aged to older, but of course, such people would've been working hard in their field prior to the award.

<comment><USER8> "...the mean age of Nobel Prize winning achievements since 1980 is 48 y."

[http://www.pnas.org/content/108/47/18910.full](http://www.pnas.org/content/108/47/18910.full)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> See also: _5 Famous People Who Succeeded Long After They Should 've Quit_

[http://www.cracked.com/article_19655_5-famous-late- bloomers....](http://www.cracked.com/article_19655_5-famous-late- bloomers.html)

Lists: Alan Rickman, Peter Roget, Joseph Conrad, Kathryn Joosten and Harland "Colonel" Sanders.

</comment><comment><USER10> A lot of people don't accomplish anything until their forties. Easy to understand why too: you're wiser, have more money and built up a network of connections over the years.

The edge younger people have I think is a drive, higher energy=levels and an optimism that comes from not being jaded from years of full-time work.

</comment><comment><USER11> Good summary of a 'hack' of human nature:

>A well-maintained physique is a great business card. Ideas and intelligence are what matters, but if you have a well-maintained physique, it's better. People are always more willing when it comes to beauty; there's not much to be done about it. It's a classic ideal: healthy mind, healthy body.

</comment><comment><USER12> Related, Malcom Gladwell on "Late Bloomers":

[http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/10/20/late- bloomers-2](http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/10/20/late-bloomers-2) (2008)

<comment><USER13> I like Gladwell from a pop-sci point of view. After he retroactively tried to medically diagnose Goliath using the King James Bible and a few anecdotes, I really tuned him out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I totally feel this article. I decided to create a startup in my late 40s, 20 years into a steady, safe career of enterprise IT. I finally feel _ready_.

</comment><comment><USER15> Somewhat related:

        What's the average age of people you fund?

        About 29. A lot of people think it's younger because
        the press especially like to write about young founders.

[http://www.ycombinator.com/faq/#q42](http://www.ycombinator.com/faq/#q42)

<comment><USER16> Yeah, but a normal distribution centered on 29, with a lower bound of ~18 doesn't actually imply all that many 40+ year olds.

(on mobile, someone else can reply with the math for an upvote)

<comment><USER17> Not that I am a mathematician, but I am pretty sure that you can't actually calculate how many 40+ people there are just from these values since you can't assume the distribution is normal.

<comment><USER18> The central limit theorem might have something to say about that...

<comment><USER19> I doubt they have funded a Sufficiently Large Number of people.

<comment><USER16> It's well over 1600 people funded.

I'd find it surprising if we didn't see a skewed normal distribution (skewed because of the lower bound).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Headline is a bit misleading.

By 40 he had already significant experience in the industry, as a menswear buyer for a department store and through his 30s a menswear designer, both employed and freelance. Then he (the creative) and his partner (the business guy) created a startup leading to where he is today.

This isn't too unusual a story in the world of startups (not to minimize the achievement of his or any self-sacrificing startup), and doesn't reflect the title's premise at all.

<comment><USER21> I don't know - I think it's more akin to spending 20 years as a dev in various companies, then one day saying "I'm finally going to take a chance on that start-up idea".

We'd probably be saying pretty much the same thing (regardless as to whether some of what she/he'd done had made a real difference to those companies) - "she/he spent 20 years writing code, but XXX was her/his first real accomplishment/success..."

As I've been told many, many times - overnight success is usually preceded by 10 years of hard work.</comment></comment>